CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Limitations of Expert Testimony
.........Matters Within Common Experience
10 Cards On This Topic:

Expert witness was unnecessary to establish real estate broker's conduct constituting breach of duty where circumstances were within the common knowledge of layman.

Resisting police officer conviction conditionally reversed where admission of E's complex testimony re police standards for use of force was error as its purpose was unclear and it invaded province of the jury.

Ps injured in Harley-Davidson motorcycle toy ride on freeway barred from recovery where primary assumption of risk applied to the activity and H-D did nothing to increase the risk-no expert testimony needed where risk obvious.

Reversible error to admit human resources expert’s opinion testimony that certain facts were "indicators" that Lab fired P for retaliatory reasons.

Expert not permitted where matter within common experience of jurors.

When witness' expertise adds nothing to evidence, improper to admit opinion interpreting it; jury fully capable of doing so itself.

Where trier of fact can reach same conclusion based upon common experience and normal intelligence, expert testimony is inappropriate.

Witness may not express opinions on definition of crimes, whether a crime committed or on defendant's guilt, as jury is as competent as expert to weigh evidence and draw conclusion of guilt or innocence.

Expert may not testify to matters within common experience or knowledge.

Expert testimony generally inadmissible in domestic relations law.